The Carpentariat

Any means to an end(run)

If ever there was bipedal disproof of “intelligent design,” George W. Bush is it. So it was only fitting that this poster boy for the monumentally simplistic would become the nation’s leading spokesman for the reintroduction of medieval theo-biology into the classroom.

I write, of course, about the president’s less than surprising endorsement this week of equivalent emphasis on both intelligent design theory and evolutionary facts in our public schools - not as a religio-philosophical inquiry, which it appropriately is, but as a one’s-as-good-as-the-other scientific excursion.

Said Bush to a group of reporters Monday, “I [feel] like both sides ought to be properly taught.” When asked if that meant design theory is an alternative scientific theory, he said “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”

That’s not at all what he was asked. Not even close. In addition, we expose children to Newton’s perfectly ordered physics; we don’t teach it as equally valid to Einstein’s relativity theories or quantum mechanics simply because Newton asserted Godly design and q.m. is, well, messy.

Some say the proposed elevation of intelligent design to evolution’s scientific status is the camel’s nose under the tent. But in keeping with the anthropomorphic metaphor, it’s more like the 800-pound gorilla in the classroom - the fundamentalist and right-wing Christian gorilla.

“Intelligent design does not identify the designer, but critics say the theory is a thinly disguised argument for God and the divine creation of the universe. Invigorated by a recent push by conservatives, the theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20 states, with Kansas in the lead.” Imagine that. Kansas leads.

But it’s not a “thinly” disguised argument by fundamentalists. It’s quite naked. A comment representative of its boldness appeared in a USA Today piece about right-wing Christian activism’s lethal aim at America’s Enlightenment heritage: “We sit back and let it happen,” said a disgruntled religionist. “We need to be more vocal - let God back into places he should be, like in the schools.”

And there was this about Bush’s comments from Southern Baptist chieftain Richard Land: “It’s what I’ve been pushing, it’s what a lot of us have been pushing.” Evolution “is too often taught as fact [and] if you’re going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists.” (Notice the concluding structure: the “most support among scientists,” not the “support of most scientists.”)

But the manufactured controversy does comport nicely with Mr. Land’s political agenda - the theocratization of America in both the public and private spheres. The Borg Christians won’t pray in peace until everyone, everywhere, behaves and believes precisely as they do. Assimilate or expatriate.

Still, it’s the devil’s electoral pact that Republicans have made with these domestic jihadists that frightens most. Alone, their respective powers are limited; combined, they’re an abusive juggernaut. Fundamentalist arguments for intelligent design in public schools are merely one indication of a willingness to violate all tenets of intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for the arrogant exercise of power. So too with their secular partners.

The recent special election in Ohio’s 2nd congressional district is the latest case in point. In that thick Bush country, GOP candidate Jean Schmidt pulled out only a narrow victory Tuesday over vehemently anti-Bush Democrat Paul Hackett, a Marine officer who had served in Iraq. How did she do it? By lying, that’s how.

“In the final days of the campaign,” reported the NYT, “Ms. Schmidt accused the Hackett campaign of misleading voters by claiming that he would be the first Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress. In fact, the Schmidt campaign said, Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, has been serving in the Iraq war as a Navy Reserve officer.

“But in an interview, Mr. Kirk said he had not gone to Iraq for the military, and instead worked one weekend a month in an intelligence unit at the Pentagon.” As though Republican Schmidt didn’t know that about Republican Kirk through the National Republican Campaign Committee that doused her with Republican cash and ran Republican Party ads.

Though despicable, the last-minute tactic was enough to help put Ms. Schmidt over the top. Despicable schmicable, the GOP opines. Anything - anything - to win.

Nor is there a single entry in the book of dirty tricks that right-wing theocrats wouldn’t pull to lord their faith over others’ knowledge, such as unctuously back-dooring their private religion into your child’s public classroom, and on your tax dollar.

Which leaves the honest and ethical at a severe disadvantage.

“Never mind”

The Bush administration’s scamming of Congress and the American public, not to mention the world, just keeps on rollin’. Nothing seems to make a dent in it - not shame, not exposure, not reality. And what immediately followed the Bolton recess appointment was merely one more instance of a scam-fixation.

How often and how long has the public heard from this White House that United Nations reform hangs entirely on John Bolton’s confirmation as ambassador? Without him, went the argument, you could forget any progress. And because they refused to confirm him, Democrats were the ones obstructing that progress, every bit of it - all of it long overdue. The world was a lesser place because of those obstructionist Dems.

Yet on the heels of Bolton’s recess appointment the White House admitted, in effect, that the entire argument was a hoax - a cynical game to keep the GOP Indignation Machine cranked up to maximum only to score maximum political points. Suddenly the White House was willing to open up.

Have you heard the good news, brother? “‘Most of the reforms sought by the United States are well on their way to completion,’ said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment. Another [WH official],” continued the New York Times report, “said that because so much had been achieved, there was little concern that Mr. Bolton’s combative personality would jeopardize the agenda.”

So there you have it, but only after a bruising and wholly unnecessary fight. The White House never needed Bolton and his unique skills, as it so vociferously argued, and his obnoxious personality was simply a nice touch, safely neutered. John will now show up for work with nothing to do but twist paperclips.

What’s more, the difficult “U.N. reform” given so much public emphasis by the White House is about as contentious as Orrin Hatch’s grilling of John Roberts will be. All along the administration has had six major reforms in mind, said the Times, and it “has won support for all of them from Secretary General Kofi Annan and from other countries.” In short, the White House didn’t publicly accept “yes” for an answer from the U.N., since the political game at home would have been called due to reasonableness. And that’s no fun for the fiery-eyed fans.

Furthermore, the specific reforms sought and already underway - once again, reforms accomplished without Mr. Bolton’s assistance, and probably because of that - are less world-altering than the public was urged to believe. For instance there’s the “administrative streamlining in Mr. Annan’s office” that is sure to make our little planet a safer and happier place. And there’s the upcoming “broad statement” - not just a statement, mind you, but a broad statement - aimed at alleviating third-world poverty. That should do it.

Other bold reforms include the “adoption of a new treaty opposing terrorism” and “establishing a ‘peace-building commission.’” Yes, once terrorists find that Bolton has in hand a treaty to fight their vile and nefarious schemes, backed by a commission no less, well, it’ll be goodnight nurse for the bad guys.

Such were the momentous tasks - office tidying and Rodney King-like committee meetings - that the administration led the country into believing that only Strongman Bolton could have accomplished. Naturally it was all a scam. And it was one the White House was willing to occupy the Senate with for weeks, simply to pump up the base.

In this divisive and scamming stubbornness lies a relationship to the current battle over Judge John Roberts’ papers and the administration’s stance of executive privilege. Said a Clinton administration aide about that fight: “I have no doubt that if that had been us, we would have turned over the papers. I’m not saying that’s a good thing; I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But whenever we walked up to the brink, we blinked. And these guys don’t.” Ever.

That sounds tough and no doubt the easily awed right wing loves it, but it’s also an attitude that separates this administration from responsible ones. The macho-extremist mentality of never backing down from a fight - even when the fight is utterly pointless and thus needlessly divisive - is not strong and principled leadership. It’s just reckless. Mature adults can distinguish between the two.

Reckless duplicity. What a character-combo for leaders of the free world.

The joy of being Republican

Presidential memo: “Because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves.”

So poof, John is now Ambassador Bolton.

Naturally the Republican Senate will defend the recess appointment as an honorable act. In itself, that’s fine. But let us take a look at the Republican attitude toward the previous administration’s recess appointments, as well as the urgency of up-or-down votes.

I offer no commentary, just quotes. They do all the talking.

“Senator [James] Inhofe, who has clashed before with Mr. Clinton over such recess appointments, called the president’s latest use of that authority an abuse of power…. Mr. Inhofe today called it ‘outrageously inappropriate for any president to fill a [position] through a recess appointment in a deliberate effort to bypass the Senate.’” New York Times, December 29, 2000

“[Senator Orrin] Hatch chided the president for backing a nominee who, he said, failed to ‘bring all sides together….’ Mr. Hatch said ‘the timing of this [recess appointment] serves as further evidence of what we have come to know is true: The Clinton-Gore White House is intent on dividing our people rather than uniting us for the common good.’” New York Times, August 4, 2000

“Inhofe said Clinton [by making a recess appointment] had ‘chosen a path of confrontation which was totally avoidable.’” Washington Post, January 26, 2000

“‘[One nominee] has been waiting a record 45 months for a vote on his nomination…. [Another] has been waiting almost two years for a vote. The Senate is not doing its job,’ argues Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts…. “‘These [appointees] are in limbo, and it’s not fair to them.’” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 31, 1999

“Some GOP conservatives were going to block [the nominee] from being confirmed, even though he appeared to have had the votes necessary for confirmation.” Washington Post, June 17, 1999

“When the Democrats controlled the Senate under Presidents Reagan and Bush, many nominees were subjected to lengthy scrutiny and withdrawn. But there was nothing like the disruption being carried out today by restive G.O.P. conservatives.” New York Times, November 14, 1997

“Opponents, including members of the Christian right, reacted angrily and chastised Clinton for circumventing confirmation procedures…. Inhofe said the appointment shows Clinton’s ‘utter contempt of the Senate and its role in the confirmation process,’ and some senators said they would thwart Clinton’s future nominees because of what they consider his disregard for the Senate’s role to ‘advise and consent.’” The San Francisco Chronicle, June 5, 1999

“If Clinton makes a recess appointment, ‘it’s a finger in the eye of the Senate,’ Hatch said. ‘I think you’d find there would be an awful lot of repercussions from that…. I think there’ll be a slowdown on a lot of things from the president. I think you’re going to have difficulty getting judges through. They’re going to have difficulty on the appropriations process. I think there’ll be attempts by some to really let the president know you don’t do this.’” Washington Post, December 15, 1997

“I need respect and cooperation from the administration during the recess period if they expect to have my respect and cooperation after the first of the year,” Senator Trent Lott said. “So I would not expect them to give [a] recess appointment…. It would really poison the well for next year.” Christian Science Monitor, December 4, 1997

“If the President recess appoints him,” Hatch said, “it would be an unfortunate elevation of politics above due respect for the Senate, its procedures and its constitutional responsibilities. It would serve as evidence, in my opinion, that this Administration does not wish to achieve consensus on th[is] difficult issue … but is instead intent on playing wedge politics…. It would be taken very badly by Republicans on Capitol Hill.” New York Times, November 24, 1997

OK, I couldn’t resist butting in just once. Here’s a real gem. Republicans talked about Clinton’s disrespectful, contemptuous ways in the appointment process, but get this:

“The administration, in its eagerness to win Senate confirmation for its nominees [to regulatory agencies], has agreed to let Senate Republicans take the lead in naming candidates for Republican slots.” Washington Post, August 02, 1997.

And we all know what Clinton got for being accommodating.

Satan’s liberals

I now know that it is indeed possible to die laughing, because last week I damn near lost control of the car as I doubled up with laughter at hearing Tom DeLay on NPR bemoan the terrible, terrible strong-arm tactics of the “Democrat” Party’s leadership.

Tom was less outraged than saddened, deeply saddened, at even the thought of party overlords pressuring their congressional rank and file, in this case on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Some of these poor victims had wanted to vote aye on Cafta, sobbed Tom, but the cruel masters high atop the House Democratic caucus wouldn’t let them vote their conscience. He was despondent; I feared he might harm himself.

For DeLay, of course, the Cafta vote was merely another opportunity to strafe the opposition, not to bespeak a bill’s merits - and it was as well one of those hysterically laughable moments in classic hypocrisy that makes one wonder about the soundness of democracy itself.

But what can you expect from a man who once taught a Bible study class using not the recorded wisdom of Christ, but the writings of Watergate-felon Charles Colson?

In itself and apart from all the hype, Cafta was of relatively minor importance to the trading parties involved. Roughly four-fifths of the goods from the Central American exporters in question are already tariff-free, and reciprocal U.S. exports are equivalent in volume to New Jersey’s international trade. This is hardly the stuff that international prosperity is made of.

But it is the stuff that disgraceful, over-the-top political tactics are made of, and that’s where modern Republican pols - from Richard Nixon to Tom DeLay - really shine.

I think journalist Bob Woodward, in recently surveying the essence of the Nixon administration, indirectly synopsized not just Republican rule then, but the coming 30 years of its modus operandi. Speaking of the secret White House tapes, he said it was striking that here was a group of men who held vast powers in achieving some actual good for tens of millions of people, but all they ever talked about was, “How can we screw somebody?”

For Nixon and his henchmen like Chuck Colson - Tom DeLay’s spiritual mentor and political idol - the art of governing was merely about the thrill of the hunt and the agony of the killed. The chance to accomplish authentic good never crossed their minds. Politics was, rather, a cold game in which body counts mattered above all. Screw ‘em, stick it to ‘em, shaft ‘em - these were their cherished political values.

Yet by comparison Nixon and his cohorts now look almost mild in their putrefaction. Those boys were interested principally in screwing perceived enemies largely confined to the inner sanctums of the Beltway. A total war of scorched earth was unimagined only because “we the people” weren’t the primary target - and in retrospect “the system” was relatively safe, given that a healthy congressional opposition and robust press were in place to restrain Nixon & Co.’s paranoia and ambition.

Today, however, it is indeed the broad system of American government - not just enemy partisans - that is under fire by the likes of DeLay. To him and millions of likeminded followers the system is quite literally unGodly - and because the Big Guy upstairs is on their side, any political tactic is divinely justified in overturning it.

As DeLay said in a 1999 speech to the Christian Coalition - a speech so brazen even the Bush campaign told him to pipe down, lest people get the right idea - the “Absolute Truth … has been manipulated and destroyed” by … Satan? … no, by the “liberal worldview.”

So in the coming presidential election, he asked the chosen few in an Elmer Gantry delivery, “Will this country accept the worldviews of humanism, materialism, sexism, naturalism, postmodernism or any of the other -isms? Or will we march forward with a biblical worldview, a worldview that says God is our creator, that man is a sinner, and that we will save this country by changing the hearts and minds of Americans?”

Well, as Chuck Colson famously promised in his wholly political, pre-evangelical days, “When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” DeLay has simply upgraded the maxim to include a kind of political neo-evangelicalism.

DeLay also exhorted in that 1999 speech: “We have the House and the Senate. All we need is the presidency!”

But of course it didn’t stop there. Now they want the courts. It won’t stop there, either - and that’s not a laughing matter.